“I had two Jesus Christs on the ward. And they spent the entire day explaining, “I am Jesus Christ.” They buttonholed everybody and explained, “I am the real Jesus Christ.”

And so I put John and Alberto on a bench and told them, “You sit there. Now each of you tells me you’re Jesus Christ. Now, John, I want you to explain to Alberto that you, not he, are Jesus Christ. Alberto, you tell John, you are the real Jesus Christ and that he is not.

I kept them sitting on that bench, explaining to each other all day long that they were the true Jesus Christ. And after about a month, John said, “I’m Jesus Christ and that crazy Alberto says that he is Jesus Christ.”

I said to John, “You know, John, you say the same thing that he says. And he says the same thing that you say. Now, I think that one of you is crazy, because there is only one Jesus Christ.”

John thought that over for about a week. He said, “I’m saying the same things as that crazy fool is saying. He’s crazy and I’m saying what he says. That must mean I’m crazy too, and I don’t want to be crazy.”

I said, “Well I don’t think you’re Jesus Christ. And you don’t want to be crazy. I’ll have you work in the hospital library.” He worked for a few days and came to me and said, “There’s something awfully wrong: Every book has my name on every page.” He opened the book, showed me JOHN THORNTON. On every page of the book he found his name.

I agreed, and showed him how on every page of the book MILTON ERICKSON appeared. I had him help me find Dr. Hugh Carmichael’s name, Jim Glitton’s name, Dave Shakow’s name. In fact, we could find any name he thought of on that page.

John said, “These letters don’t belong to a name. They belong to that word!

I said, “That’s right.”

John continued working in the library. Six months later, he went home free of his psychotic identifications.”

The King travels through six regions in the heavenly firmament, and in the seventh he fixes his abode. There the royal palace is adorned with golden tapestry. If you understand my meaning, this Key will open the first lock, and push back the first bolt; but if you do not, no spectacles or natural eyesight will enable you to understand what follows...
-The Twelve Keys of Basilius Valentinus

It may have occurred to any number of Magi, skilled in the symbolic language of stars & planets, to examine the natal chart of One believed to have been born into this World on Dec. 25th, 1BC. Whether that character central to Christian mythology really existed is beside the point; but we should note that the day itself serves as a marker by which we have come to reckon our count of years.

Curiously, if we look at the relation of planets:zodiac for that particular day, and apply it to the attributions given by Crowley, we find certain couples joined together - suggesting a ‘narrative structure’ which may have informed the iconography:numerical sequence of the Tarot de Marseilles a few hundred years before he decided to publish the ‘unwritten qabalah.’

Age of Pisces
☉ + = Resh + Qoph
XIX The Sun + The Moon XVIII
Head + Back of Head

Closer examination of this natal ‘chart’ will also reveal it as a set of blueprints for aligning Crowley’s Tarot (partitioned by digit root) upon the Qabalah Tree.

This ‘narrative structure’ is, in fact, a means for constructing a geometric diagram which allows One to ‘see’ specific irrational numbers within a ‘simplified’ context. In the form of our astrological glyphs, the architecture of this system is broken up and projected onto a 2d surface - like puzzle pieces which anyOne adept at thinking in ‘HigHer’ dimensions can easily reassemble. Whether Crowley invented this cypher-text, or revealed what he received upon initiation may be a subject for further debate, but claiming it does not exist is like refusing, on principle alone, to look at evidence merely because it challenges certain dominant paradigms concerning the history of playing cards [score 10 points?].

It's obvious you've put a lot of time and thought into this. Unfortunately, to my eyes, it looks like the scribblings on a chalkboard in a physicist's lab... I don't understand a thing that I'm looking at. To make matters worse, I'm not sure that I care enough to spend the time to try to decipher it, because my suspicion is that at the end of all the effort, if I ever got that far, I'd end up discovering that it was a mad scientist writing on the board before I entered the room, and most of it doesn't really make sense. So, yes, I'm prejudiced that I'm looking at a crackpot theory before I even start, and then when I try to start, I'm so completely overwhelmed by what I'm looking at that I can't make heads or tails of it. It is completely out of my scope. I'm in love with the iconography of the early tarot decks, and tracing the changes to the iconography as the decks travelled between cities and countries, and I tend not to care about astrology, kabballah, alchemy, or pretty much any of the esoteric systems that many people attach to tarot because in the years that I've been exploring tarot history, there just doesn't seem to me to be much of a connection between them.

When I look at your posts, it reminds me of the"Kennedy and Lincoln: Coincidence?" theories from years ago, where a bunch of random numbers and coincidences are built into what is supposed to be a convincing argument ""Kennedy" and "Lincoln" both have 7 letters!!!"

And I'm just not that good at the abstract anyway, so it is harder for me to wrap my head around what you are trying to say.

Many of the people on this forum have known each other for years now, and we've seen a lot of theories come and go (hence the crackpot theory thread). And we've had the same type of presentation where letters equal numbers equal "the Mother's arm" equal trees equal.. well, you know. So I'm also jaded on top of it all.

But I sincerely appreciate your participation, and your willingness to try to share the theory that you've developed, and I wish that I was able to, if not join in, at least understand what the heck you are on about.

I'm wondering if you think it might be possible to just give us a paragraph or two as an overview as to what the point of this is? No need to have formulas or long explanations of the details, I would like an "executive summary" where I can get the main points of your theory, and your conclusion, without all of the other stuff which for me, gets in the way of understanding where you're coming from and where you want to go. If you were to describe in a few sentences to someone who was familiar with the basics of tarot what your main gist is, I would personally really appreciate it.

Many thanks,
robert

The Tarot will lose all its vitality for one who allows himself to be side-tracked by its pedantry. - Aleister Crowley

robert wrote:I'm wondering if you think it might be possible to just give us a paragraph or two as an overview as to what the point of this is? No need to have formulas or long explanations of the details, I would like an "executive summary" where I can get the main points of your theory, and your conclusion, without all of the other stuff which for me, gets in the way of understanding where you're coming from and where you want to go. If you were to describe in a few sentences to someone who was familiar with the basics of tarot what your main gist is, I would personally really appreciate it.

There is a method of organizing Tarot which employes a technique called additive persistence, whereby One adds together the digits of each number to obtain its’ digit root (e.g 15 = 1+5 = 6). This partitions the deck into 9 sets (+ the courts); all of which are assembled into a Caduceus-like matrix, which is superimposed over the Qabalah Tree. The attributions published by Crowley impart the cypher-text adjoining Number : Glyph (elements, planets, zodiac) : Letter : Symbol (depicting the hieroglyphs from which the Letters were derived) which allows One to reconstruct this Caduceus.

This, in turn, gives access to an occult corpus of Hermetic knowledge which could be characterized as ‘Pythagorean’ in nature as it seamlessly integrates ‘figurate’ arithmetic & geometry with astronomy & music theory (harmonics). The assertion made by Crowley and some of his predecessors that Tarot is the Book of Thoth stems from this assembly and its’ use as a metrological TooL. The iconography of the Tarot cards and the sequence in which they are arranged have been adapted to fit specific ‘alchemical’ allegories consistent with this system.

To digress from measuring for just one moment - the alchemical allegorical illustration of the wolf in the flames must surely be the original source for the exact same image in the minchiate decks - it's simply too bizarre to be otherwise.

So... should we try looking at the minchiate from an alchemical point of view, or simply accept that images
were borrowed from a multitude of different sources?

Hello Yngwë Yngweron, thanks for starting this thread... there are more things in heaven and earth etc...

Yngwë Yngweron wrote:XXIV: A Wolf devours the King &, being burned, restores him to Life

Lupus metallorum = The grey wolf or stibnite, used to purify gold, as the sulphur in the antimony sulphide bonds to the metals alloyed with the gold, and these form a slag which can be removed. The gold remains dissolved in the metallic antimony which can be boiled off to leave the purified gold."http://www.levity.com/alchemy/antimony_in_alchemy.html

“Antimony is a semi-metal which most commonly occurs naturally as antimony sulfide, Sb₂S₃, a mineral now called stibnite. Stibnite may be reduced to antimony metal simply by heating it with charcoal or other mild reducing agent under proper conditions....

“When the whole mass has cooled, the layers may be easily separated and the upper slag discarded. Then the antimony will appear with a metallic luster. If conditions are suitable, and if the antimony has been well purified, metallic crystals will have formed. The crystals of antimony are long and slender and sometimes arrange themselves in a patterns on a sort of stem and so resemble the fronds of ferns. If certain very special conditions prevail in the purification and cooling of the metal, the crystalline ‘branches’ may be arranged around a central point and so take on the appearance of a star. The star of antimony fascinated the alchemists, and especially Newton.

“But in the seventeenth century neither the nomenclature nor the chemical understanding of the star of antimony was quite the same. In the first place, the name ‘antimony’ was then applied only to the ore, while the terms ‘regulus’ or ‘regulus of antimony’ indicated the antimony metal. In the second place, it was thought that the iron, or any other metal, used the in the reduction of the ore remained in the metallic product, whereas actually it did not if the right proportions had been used. That belief, however, gave rise to a variety of designations for metallic antimony: ‘regulus per se,’ if the metal had been formed by the heating of the ore with a non-metallic reducing agent; ‘Martial Regulus,’ if iron had been employed in the reduction (Mars being identified with iron); ‘Venereal Regulus.’ if copper had been used (Venus being equivalent to copper); and so forth. When the star appeared in the refining, the antimony was given the special designation of regulus antimonii stellatus, the ‘starred regulus of antimony.’

“Nevertheless the common method of preparation in the seventeenth century was identical with the modern one and employed the stibnite ore and iron....

“The term ‘regulus’ is another word which has changed its meaning since Newton’s time. Although now it refers to any metallic product which forms under the slag when ores are refined, then it applied only to metallic antimony. Thus the ‘regulus of iron’ did not then mean metallic iron, as it would today; rather it meant metallic antimony prepared by the use of iron. To the seventeenth-century user of that designation it would also have meant that iron was present in the regulus, as well as antimony metal, although that would not always have been the true state of chemical affairs. On occasion, it might possibly have meant to the seventeenth-century ‘chymist’ that some particular portion of the original iron, such as its ‘mercury,’ was present in the regulus.

“The word ‘regulus’ means ‘little king,’ as it is the diminutive of the Latin word for ‘king,’ rex. It has sometimes been suggested that the word came to be applied metallic antimony because of the special chemical relationships that antimony has with gold, ‘the king of metals,’ ...It has also been suggested that the term ‘regulus’ was used for the metal because the metallic regulus was something of special value obtained from the ore. But it is here suggested that perhaps metallic antimony got its name from ‘regulus’ from its ability to form a star, because there was, and is, a prominent star by that name: Regulus, a star of the first magnitude, the brightest in the constellation Leo, and also known as cor leonis, the heart of the lion. At any rate, Newton saw a relationship between ‘the regulus of antimony’ and the ‘regulus of Leo,’...so, whether the relationship originally existed or not, it is important for the present discussion. Newton - and it is at least possible that others did also - seems to have interpreted the lion of alchemical symbolism as antimony ore. The starry metallic antimony at its heart then became cor leonis of Regulus.” (146-8)
________________

“Both Sendivogius and d’Espagnet firmly believed in ‘magnets.’ The conceived of them as matrices which drew other things - bodies or spirits - to themselves by virtue of an attractive power and then somehow made manifest and substantial a new form what had been drawn in.

“In more than one place in Keynes MS 19 Newton excerpted a passage from Sendivogius in which the ‘Magnet’ or the ‘Chalybs’ was mentioned. In his own notes keyed to that passages Newton then identified the attractive body as antimony, even though Sendivogius said never a word about antimony. In Tractate 9 of the New Light, Sendivogus had said: “There is another Chalybs which is made like this, created of itself from nature, which knows how to draw from the rays of the sun that which so many men have sought, and it is the beginning of our work.”
Newton’s response to that was as follows: “That other (and properly named) chalybs is antimony for it is created from nature of itself (without art) and it is the beginning of the work; neither are there more than two principles, Lead and Antimony.”

“Perhaps it was at that point, when Sendivogius began to emphasize ‘magnets,’ that Newton first began to see the significance of Basilius Valentinus’ idea about the ‘magnetic’ property of antimony and so identified the Sendivogian ‘Chalybs’ with antimony.

“Another example in Keynes MS 19 may be drawn from the section on the Aenigma or the Philosophical Riddle. There Sendivogius spoke of ‘our water.’

“Our water is wondrously drawn, but that is the best which is drawn by the power of our Chalybs which is found in the belly of Aries.” Newton’s comment applies to the ‘power of our Chalybs which is found in the belly of Aries,’ and in it one may see the effects of the prisca sapienta doctrine in operation. Newton said that the best water was drawn “...by the power of our sulphur which lies hid in Antimony. For Antimony was called Aries with the Ancients. Because Aries is the first Zodiac Sign in which the Sun begins to be exalted and Gold is exalted most of all in Antimony.”

“It is a chemical fact that gold can be refined or ‘exalted’ by heating it with antimony ore. In such a treatment, any metals contaminating the gold combine with the sulphur of the stibnite and all rise to the top of the molten mass as a sort of scum. The gold sinks to the bottom, along with metallic antimony, from whence the gold may be recovered in an extremely pure state. That is one of the special relationships between antimony and gold, the ‘king of metals,’ which lend credence to the idea that the use of the world ‘regulus’ for metallic antimony derives from the meaning ‘little king.’ Newton knew that gold could be refined in that manner, evidently from his general chemical reading, for it was common knowledge in the seventeenth century...

“Newton then attributed that knowledge to the ‘Ancients,’ in accord with his belief that all wisdom was anciently held by at least some wise men, and then interpreted the mystical Sendivogian phrase, ‘in the belly of Aries,’ in terms of that supposed antique knowledge. So in Keynes MS 19, in his explanatory comment on the Sendivogian passage just quoted, Newton said that antimony was called Aries by the ancients because the sun begins to be ‘exalted’ in Aries (meaning it begins to rise towards its summer zenith, for Aries is the first spring zodiacal sign) as gold, always symbolized by the sun, is ‘exalted’ or refined in antimony.” (153-4)
- “The Foundations of Newton's Alchemy, or, The Hunting of the Greene Lyon"
by Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs (1983)http://books.google.com/books?id=wwc4AA ... is&f=false

debra wrote:And Little Red Riding Hood, too, jumping out of the wolf's belly after the Woodsman chops off his head?

Debra, I'm not sure whether you're referring to the thread topic or to my connecting the alchemical image to the minchiate - the point of my post above. The numerical ideas are far too complex for me to even begin to figure out, so I wouldn't have the gall to dismiss them out of hand, but I do find it exciting how seemingly unrelated links/connections in a topic can be made that sometimes lead to new insights.

Huck talks about 'the burning animal' in the minchiate in another thread, about half way down this page:

It would seem from his post that he hadn't seen the alchemical image at that time - I wonder if he'd dismiss the similarities between it and the minchiate image as a fairy tale - it'd be interesting to know what he and others would think.

It would seem from his post that he hadn't seen the alchemical image at that time - I wonder if he'd dismiss the similarities between it and the minchiate image as a fairy tale - it'd be interesting to know what he and others would think.

Pen

Nice finding, thanks. I was aware, that there might be an alchemic background, but I hadn't a specific picture in mind. I've seen this picture earlier, but it didn't immediately jump to my mind.

Now we don't know, how the early Minchiate/Germini looked like ... the known versions start around 1700, although at least some motifs should be older.
Recently I followed the ways of "Splendour Solis", a book with 22 pictures, produced in the Fugger context. The Fugger got in the European banking system the position, which earlier was filled by the Medici and the whole found its expression in the 1520's, when Medici popes ruled against an emperor, who got his throne with the money of Fugger ... the situation was stranding in the sacco di Roma, finishing a longer period of Italian dominance and proceeding the period of Spanish influence since Alfonso of Aragon 1442 and following dominance till the loss of the Armada.